On Point: A. Ch. 51, Mental health

Brown County v. Kevin Q., 2011AP208, District 3, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin Q.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶10      We conclude the evidence sufficiently shows there is a substantial likelihood Kevin would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.  Kevin acknowledged he has overdosed on medication at least three times.  Slightam testified that without the commitment he was unsure “if [Kevin] would comply with all the medications.”  He also opined Kevin’s medication administration needs to be supervised. 

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,

Brown County v. Quinn M., 2010AP3162, District 3, 4/26/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Quinn M.: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support extension of ch. 51 commitment upheld. 1. Mental illness. Expert testified that she was certain Quinn had a mental illness, though given his history of drug and alcohol use she could not provide a specific diagnosis with certainty.

Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.

¶6        As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment,

Waukesha County v. Kathleen R. H., 2010AP2571-FT, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kathleen R.H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The evidence supported ch. 51 mental health recommitment for a period of 12 months.

¶8        Here, Kathleen misconstrues WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(am) as requiring proof, apart from that contained in her treatment record, that she would be a danger to herself or others if treatment were withdrawn.  

Rock County v. Donald G., 2010AP2444, District 4, 2/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald G.: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madson Appellate; case activity

Concededly proper placement at Mendota under concurrent chs. 51 (mental health commitment) and 55 (protective placement) needn’t account for future termination should ch. 51 commitment later be amended. The placement order complies with § 55.18(3)(e)(1), and the circut court isn’t obligated to “address hypothetical scenarios in its order continuing protective placement.”

Oneida County v. Michael B., 2010AP002216-FT, District 3, 2/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Michael B.: Lora B. Cerone. SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Mental Recommitment – Instruction on Dangerousness

The following oral jury instruction didn’t impermissibly direct the jury to find dangerousness, on trial for mental recommitment: “This is a recommitment proceeding, therefore, the law requires that the requirement of a recent act,

Barron County v. Dennis H., 2010AP1026, District 3, 10/19/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Dennis H.: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Evidence held sufficient to support finding of dangerousness.

1) Recent overt act, attempt or threat to do serious physical harm. A psychologist testified that Dennis at times displayed aggressive behavior (“he changes at the snap of the finger and will become highly excitable,

Milwaukee County v. Earl Z., 2010AP704, District 1, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earl Z.: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

County appeal of dismissal of emergency detention at probable cause stage is moot, where facts supporting that requested detention are no longer operative. Exceptions to mootness — appellate court may reach merits if the issue is sufficiently important or likely repetitious but evasive of review —

Manitowoc Co. HSD v. Tammy L.C., No. 2010AP118, District II, 7/14/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tammy L.C.: Matthew S. Pinix

Mootness – Discharge from Civil Commitment

Appeal of commitment order is dismissed as moot where appellant has been discharged and no extension sought.

Mootness raises a question of policy, not jurisdiction, and the court dismissed the appeal only after satisfying itself that the underlying issue isn’t recurrent but,